Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Network Rail announce Wightman Road to reopen on Monday 5th September
http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/news/wightman-road-bridge-r...
Tags for Forum Posts: traffic, wightman bridge closure
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by John D on
-
There are two separate issues here and they are being confused.
Traffic congestion - ie too many vehicles on the road leading to delays
Pollution - ie too many petrol / diesel vehicles on the road leading to early preventable deaths and unpleasant living conditions.
If magically, all internal combustion vehicles were converted to electric, how would the massive increase in electricity consumption be met ? Britain is already struggling to meet the existing demand to power our televisions, cookers, washing machines, fridges...... We could buy more from France, which seems to have a sensible attitude to nuclear generation, but would we want our transport systems to be dependent on the goodwill ( or at least the commercial ambitions ) of our somewhat flaky neighbour ?
If magically, we all gave up our personal vehicles and relied on Uber, car clubs and self-driving vehicles, how would that reduce the number of road journeys and the consequent congestion ? We would still want to take the kids to school and go to the supermarket and it wouldn’t make any difference whether the car belonged to us, or to some car club. Is a commercial supplier of vehicles for hire going to provide enough to meet the peak demand at 8.30 am, only to see them stand idle for most of the day ?
We could tinker with our road layouts and traffic-light phasing to provide more capacity but the proof of Parkinson’s Corollary – traffic expands to fill the capacity available – can be seen 24/7 on the M25.
The answer, of course, is to force us onto public transport ( persuade doesn’t work - we’re too selfish: congestion charges don’t work – anybody noticed how freely the traffic in Central London flows these days ? Thought not. )
People will pay what it takes.
I have already suggested how we could halve the use of personal transport. Wouldn’t you like to see the road congestion halved ? the pollution halved ?
I drive about 10 thousand miles a year and I imagine that on average that is about typical.
Ration petrol/diesel supplies to the equivalent, for a mid- range petrol car, to 5 thousand miles a year, ie to 100 gallons/ 500 litres per year, fewer for diesel cars.
This would –
Cut the number of car journeys in half ( all other things being equal )
Encourage the use of more fuel-efficient vehicles ( bikes anyone ? )
Encourage the use of electric or other non-polluting vehicles ( but see the reservation above about limited supplies )
Would that be acceptable ? We’ve had rationing before in times of national emergency and who is going to deny that the current congestion and pollution levels are a national emergency ? I might even be persuaded to vote for the Green Party if they adopted this suggestion as policy.
Crazy ? Unworkable ? So is our present reliance on fossil-fuel personal transport.
-
Permalink Reply by Philip on
-
Some fair points raised here. The issue of 'forcing' people to use public transport I tend to agree with. It just causes resentment. However when public transport is cheap or free, and reliable, the dynamic changes. Since I've had my Freedom Pass, I've used my car much less. Tube fares are pretty steep, as are rail fares. Buses can be slow and until Khan gets his time sensitive bus fares into operation, costs can still be high.
-
Permalink Reply by StephenBln on
-
Let's just hope the wind isn't blowing your way John D, when one of those 'sensible' nuclear plants blow or is bombed.
Nuclear is NOT the solution as Fukushima and Tschernobyl clearly illustrated. Luckily, Ukraine is large enough to shut down part of the country for the next fifty thousand years, but Japan or the U.K., for that matter, aren't.
I and most Germans are very happy and proud that our government took the decision to scrap all nuclear plants. It's a pity all of our neighbours aren't big enough to do the same.
Oh yes, and passing on the dangerous waste products of your wasting energy to the next 200 or so generations to deal with is also not a good idea, but I guess you don't care about that.
-
Permalink Reply by Rich on
-
Nuclear power is actually statistical safer than oil, gas and coal. Yes there is some issues with it, but modern nuclear Gen IV reactors should solve or at least reduce a lot of those (one of the big changes is the waste is only radioactive for few centuries rather than millennia).
-
-
We keep being told(by the lobbyists for the nuclear industry)that after this accident, then after the next, that future power stations will be 'safer'. This is nonsense. The damage caused to the environment and the potential damage from nuclear power has the potential to destroy agriculture and fisheries on a global level. The contaminated areas of Ukraine, following Chernobyl, will not be safely habitable for 20,000 years! Around Fukishima, there is an exclusion zone of about 300 square miles. 160,000 people were evacuated. they receive paltry compensation and many have to pay the mortages on the homes they will never live in again! Radioactive cesium has been found in food and fish all over Japan, and the radioactive contamination of the Western Pacific seaboard is immense. In time, the entire oceans of the world will be affective. Nuclear power is insane. It is hugely expensive, and if the resources and subsidies were switched to alternatives and renewables, a carbon free future would be a real possibility.
-
Permalink Reply by Peter Chalk on
-
The other day, all of Scotland's energy needs were provided by renewables.
-
-
Stats are stats, if you look at this for example, Nuclear energy is massively safer. Both of the incidents in Chernobyl and Fukishima can be traced back to mistakes been made in the governance of those plants, both of the plants were build 40+ years ago, if you look at the difference between tech now and then it is massive.
Yes, the future is most likely to be alternatives and renewables, however we're not there yet and we're unlikely to be there for a 50-100 years. In the meantime, we need some like nuclear power.
-
-
But what is to be done with the waste these so-called 'safe plants' produce?
I think it is irresponsible to continue to produce waste that will be a burden for generations to come. Would you want it buried near your home?
BTW, if a gas/oil plant explodes, there might be some singed eybrows around, but a problem with a nuclear plant, could cause parts of the country becoming unlivable and closed off for ever.
-
-
The waste would be stored in similar methods to now, however they are only radioactive for a few century's rather than the tens of thousands of years the current reactors produce. Interesting it maybe possible with some gen 4 reactors to consume some current nuclear waste.
-
-
OK, Stephen and Philip - however the electricity that we need is produced - wind, tidal, solar - we still need it to power our electric cars. You're diverting the argument away from the need to cut down the emissions from internal combustion engines. I'm no supporter of nuclear but if we want clean, non-polluting electric cars we had better find a plentiful source of electricity.
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
It's actually the batteries that are the bigger problem for the moment.
-
-
I suppose it would depend on how you would police the inevitable black market that would produce. How would you stop people selling on their rations?
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
